Savitribai Phule Pune University

1. INTRODUCTION
A study of "Gyroplane" and its historical evolution, general characteristics, flight
characteristics, various designs, potential applications and aerodynamics explaining
its flight is attempted. "Gyroplane" describing an aircraft that gets lift from a freely
turning rotary wing, or rotor blades, and which derives its thrust from an engine-
driven propeller.
The technical challenges and accomplishments in the development of the autogiro are
described. Exactly 80 years ago, the autogiro was the first successful rotating-wing
aircraft, and the first powered, heavier-than-air aircraft to fly other than an airplane.
Unlike a helicopter, the rotor on an autogiro is not powered directly, but turns by the
action of the relative airflow on the blades to produce a phenomenon known as
autorotation. The aerodynamic principles of autorotation are explained and are
combined with the historic technical insights of Juan de la Cierva, who used the
principle to successfully develop and produce the autogiro.
In this machine the fixed wings have been eliminated and the lift is produced by
revolving wings on a vertical shaft projecting from the fuselage of an ordinary
airplane.
However, it doesnt belong to the family of helicopters since in the Autogiro the
wind produced by the motion of the aircraft actuates the blades. This phenomenon is
called Autorotation.
Also there are several improvement in modern design of autogyros to overcome its
all limitations such as hovering, speed,rotor blades, etc. so that they can use for
coastguard or police operations, traffic survey, tourism, etc.

2. IDEA OF THE AUTOGIRO

Despite the numerous types of helicopters that were proposed and actually built in the
period 19001920, nobody had previously considered the idea that a successful
rotating-wing aircraft could be built such that the rotor was unpowered and always
operated in the autorotative state during normal flight.
In the spring of 1920, Juan de la Cierva of Spain built a small, free-flying model of a
rotatingwing aircraft, with the rotor free to spin on its vertical shaft. The model had a
rotor with five wide-chord blades, with a horizontal and vertical tail to give it stability

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

1
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

de la Cierva launched the model from atop his home in Murcia, where the rotor spun
freely of its own accord and the model slowly glided softly to the ground.
He had rediscovered the principle of autorotation, which he was to call autogiration.
These first experiments with models were to pavethe way for the design of a
completely new aircraft that Juan de la Cierva was to call an Autogiro.

Fig. 2.1 model of gyroplane

Ideas of an autogiro, a completely new aircraft with an unpowered rotor. The rotor
provides the lift (or most of it), with forward propulsion being provided by a
conventional tractor or pusher propeller arrangement. This is compared to the
helicopter, where the rotor provides both lift and propulsion.
The name Autogiro was later to be coined by Juan de la Cierva as a proprietary name
for his machines, but when spelled starting with a small a it is normally used as a
generic name for this class of aircraft. Today, gyroplane is the official term used to
describe such an aircraft, although the names autogiro, autogyro, and gyroplane are
often used synonymously.
Unlike the helicopter, the autogiro rotor always operates in the autorotative working
state, where the power to turn the rotor comes from a relative flow that is directed
upward through the rotor disk. The low disk loading (T/A) of an autogiro rotor (and,

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

2
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

therefore, its low induced velocity) means that only a small upward flow normal to
the tip-path plane is necessary to produce autorotation. Therefore, in straight-and-
level forward flight the rotor disk need operate onlywith a slight positive angle of
attack (backward tilt). As long as the machine keeps moving forward through the air,
the rotor will continue to turn and produce lift. Reducing engine power will cause the
machine to slowly descend, and increasing power will cause it to climb. The loss of
the engine is never a problem on an autogiro because the rotor is always in the
autorotative state, and so the machine will descend safely.
The autogiro is mechanically simpler than a shaft-driven helicopter because the
engine gearbox and rotor transmission can be dispensed with. Furthermore, it is not
necessary to develop a separate means of countering torque reaction, as on the
helicopter.
This all significantly reduces weight and also reduces design, production, and capital
costs. Although the autogiro is not a direct-lift machine and cannot not hover (nor was
it designed to be), it requires only minimal forward airspeed to maintain flight.
Through a series of over 30 designs that spanned more than 10 years of development,
Juan de la Cierva proved that his Autogiros were very safe and essentially stall-proof,
and because of their low speed they could be landed in confined areas. Takeoffs
required a short runway tobuildup airspeed, but this was rectified later with the advent
of the jump takeoff technique. This gave the autogiro a capability that was to rival
the future helicopter in terms of overall performance.

a) autogiro

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

3
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

b) helicopter

Fig. 2.2 autogiro rotor a) provides lift, with forward propulsion being
provided by a conventional propeller, compared to the helicopter
b) where the rotor provides both lift and propulsion.

3. REFINING THE AUTOGYROS

3.1 USE OF MECHANICAL HINGES
Early flight tests revealed that the autogyro had a tendency to roll toward left (for an
anticlockwise rotating rotor, viewed from above). This is attributed to the fact that
rotor in forward flight experiences asymmetric lift on its advancing and retreating
blades, lift being greater on advancing blade due to higher relative velocity as
compared to retreating blade (Fig. 3.1) and hence producing a net moment to left.

Fig. 3.1 dissymmetry of lift in forward flight

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

4
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

Cierva spotted this problem and suggested use of counter rotating co-axial rotors that
would cancel the asymmetric effect of each other. But this didnt prove much
rewarding as the flow became very complex and the aerodynamics of the individual
rotors changed which caused new problems of aerodynamic moment balance.
He then decided to use compensating rotor in which the pitch of the blades were so
altered as to compensate for asymmetric lift distribution. Although in principle it was
a perfect method, but practically proved to be unrealizable due to its complexity and
hence discarded.
Taking clue from his wind tunnel tests on small models, which had a slight flexible
spar as compared to real full scale machine, which showed different aerodynamic
effect, he provided for mechanical hinges in his rotor that would allow the blades to
flap up and down depending on the equilibrium of the centrifugal, inertial and
aerodynamic forces acting on the blade, thus allowing it to move in response to
change / asymmetry of lift.

3.2 USE OF LEAD-LAG HINGE

Having taken care of the out of plane flapping motion, Cierva faced another problem,
this time with the in-plane Coriolis force due to large rotational speed of the rotor.
This force caused the blade to jerk and finally it caused one of his autogiro blades to
fly off the hub during landing causing severe damage. He was convinced to add
another hinge that would allow for in-plane motion in response to this Coriolis force
and hence the lead-lag hinge was added. This further added stability and safety to
autogiro.

3.3 CHOICE OF AIRFOIL SECTION

Choice of airfoil section was also a point of concern. In absence of detailed and
systematic airfoil data, Cierva had to do make choice on trial and error basis with
some basic requirements in mind. The material of blade construction was basically
wood which is not structurally robust in torsion. A cambered airfoil although would
have a greater lift to drag ratio and better stall characteristics but a nose down pitching
moment would always accompany which had to be borne by the blades. Many blades

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

5
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

failed because of this torsion load e.g. C 30 and hence a symmetric airfoil was used.
This was a design compromise and only later on was cambered airfoil used when
better construction materials were commercially available and viable.

3.4 DIRECTLY ORIENTABLE ROTOR CONTROL TO SPIDER BLADE

CONTROL
Conventional airplane control surfaces were used to directionally control the autogiro.
But at the time of landing these surfaces were rendered ineffective due to low speeds
at which the autogiros used to land. This would lead to loss of directional control
during landing.
This problem was solved by introducing a directly orientable rotor control which
could change the rotor tip path plane and hence the direction of flight. A hanging stick
design was used, which had a stick connected to rotor hub that helped the pilot to
control both roll and pitch by moving it was used.
Later Hafner, a competitor of Cierva introduced a Spider blade control system that
could change both the collective and cyclic pitch of the rotor blades. This was more
efficient and responsive control as compared to hanging stick design. This paved the
way for a fully articulated rotor hub.

Fig. 3.2 basic arrangement of fully articulated rotor hub

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

6
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

Vertical take off capabilities were also lately incorporated in the autogiros by means
of some mechanical starters which would over spin the rotor when the machine was at
ground so that it could generate sufficient speed for take off without running on
ground.
Later on this was replaced by a variable pitch system that would simultaneously de-
clutch the rotor and increase collective pitch to avoid any torque reaction and lift
vertically.

4. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AUTOGIROS AND OTHER

POWERED AIRCRAFT
When comparing an autogiro to an airplane, an autogiro has two distinct advantages,
first the area it needs to take off and land, second is its low speed flight
characteristics. Autogiros do not require as much area to take off and land as do
airplanes.
The other main advantage autogiros have over airplanes is their ability to fly slowly
and not stall. In an autogiro, the wings are the rotor and are moving through the air at
the speed at which the rotor is spinning, not the speed at which the aircraft is moving.
The aircraft does have to be moving forward some to maintain the autorotation, but
this is a much lower speed than the speed airplanes must maintain to produce lift.
Autogiros have a larger speed envelope, or they are capable of flying in a greater
range of speeds than airplanes.
When an autogiro slows to a speed less than that needed to maintain autorotation, lift
is not instantly lost. Instead, the rotor just starts slowing down. Since it's still
spinning, it's still creating lift. The result of slowing an autogiro down too much is just
that the aircraft will descend gently.
There are also several advantages that autogiros have over helicopters, namely
simplicity, speed, and weight. A helicopter rotor must be complex to a certain degree.
It provides the lift, thrust, and control for the aircraft. It needs a method for cyclic and
pitch control. An autogiro also uses the rotor for control, but it does not need
collective control. Some of the more complex autogiros have collective control, but it
is not a necessity for the smaller autogiros. This reduces the complexity of the system,
and by eliminating controls reduces weight. The weight in an autogiro is also reduced

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

7
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

because it does not power the rotor in flight. To power the rotor in flight typically
requires that it be connected to the engine through drive shafts and gearboxes. These
must be strong enough to handle the torque driving the rotor, and add up to a
significant weight. An autogiro does not need these systems, so it can be made lighter.
Even if the autogiro has these systems for prerotating the rotor for a jump takeoff,
they do not need to be as robust as those in a helicopter because they will not need to
handle the same amount of torque, and also because they are not flight critical, they
don't need to be over designed.
An autogiro can also fly faster than a helicopter. This is due to the fact that the rotor is
providing only lift, whereas the rotor in a helicopter is providing both lift and thrust.
For a rotorcraft to stay balanced, it must produce the same lift on both the advancing
and retreating blades.
Early autogyros required only about 50 feet of runway to take off and could land in
under twenty when airplanes were using hundreds of feet. Later autogyros reduced
their need for a runway to less than fifteen feet, and eventually to vertical take off and
landings. This allows autogyros to be flown from practically anywhere, needing
almost no runway.

5. AUTOGIROS AFTER HELICOPTERS

The interest in autogiros was revived in 1950s with several prototypes being built in
Britain and USA. They aimed at incorporating the hover capability of the helicopter in
gyroplane and overcome the speed limitations of the conventional helicopters. Few
companies even started commercial production but lack of general interest forced
them to shut down. At this point the most active autogiro market is the homebuilt
autogiros. People now fly autogiros as a flying experience or as a hobby. Some
scientific study is also in progress so as to improve the capabilities of autogiros.
Two US companies are taking active interest in autogiros namely Carter Aviation
Technologies and Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc.
Carter Aviation Technologies is a research and development company, pioneering new
aviation concepts. Their primary focus is the slowed-rotor compound aircraft, a
vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that uses the rotor for takeoff and landing, and a
small, efficient wing for high speed flight, up to 500 mph, all with much less
complexity than a tilt-rotor or other vectored thrust vehicle.

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

8
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

6. LIMITATIONS OF AUTOGYROS
1. A spinning rotor causes a lot of drag. In fact, the drag is proportional to the cube
of the rotor rpm. So, the slower the rotor spins- the less drag it creates.
Unfortunately, for conventional rotorcraft, there is a limit to how slow the rotor
can spin. For the aircraft to stay in equilibrium, both sides of the rotor must
produce the same amount of lift. The two big reasons for this are structural and
dynamic. If one side produced more lift than the other, it would create a large
moment that would have to be carried by the rotor head, making the head much
heavier. But even if the rotor head was strong enough, the moment created would
cause the aircraft to roll to the side producing less lift.
2. At very slow speeds, this isn't much of a problem. Both rotor blades see about the
same airflow, so they both make the same lift. However, once you start moving
forward, the velocity component caused by the aircraft's forward speed decreases
the airflow over the retreating blade. So, to maintain lift equilibrium, the angles of
attack of the blades are changed- advancing blade pitch is reduced, and retreating
blade pitch is increased. There are two common ways to do this- The easier to
understand is to directly control the pitch of the blades as they spin, to control
them cyclically. In a rotorcraft with cyclic pitch control, the blade is pitched up
and down with each revolution. The easier method to implement is flapping. The
blades are put on hinges which allow them to flap up and down. The advancing
blade flaps up, and the retreating blade flaps down. The change in airflow due to
the flapping is what causes the change in angle of attack, so the blades still remain
in lift equilibrium.
3. So- because of that decreased airflow over the retreating blade- its angle of attack
must be increased to compensate. Well, there gets to be a point where the angle of
attack can't be increased enough to create enough lift- the blade would stall from
being at too high of an angle of attack. But by increasing the rpm of the rotor, the
velocity over the retreating blade is increased, so it can produce more lift at a
lower angle of attack and maintain lift equilibrium.
4. Because of the high drag- they're not suited to it (a fixed wing plane could fly fast
much more efficiently), but at a certain point, the drag actually goes up much
faster than the cube of the rpm. Remember that the velocity over each blade is the
vector sum of the rotor velocity and the aircraft velocity. This is what decreases

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

9
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

the velocity over the retreating blade. It also increases the velocity over the
advancing blade. Well, because of that high rotor rpm to keep enough airflow over
the retreating blade, the advancing blade ends up going much faster than the rest
of the aircraft. It will reach the speed of sound a lot sooner. In fact, even before an
airfoil reaches the speed of sound, local pockets of supersonic flow appear
because the airfoil acclerates the air. That supersonic flow really increases drag on
the rotor. Not only does this translate into more drag on the aircraft- it means that
more power must be used to drive the rotor.
5. Also due to the engine powered rotor at the tail of autogyro body ih is not able to
HOWER freely in air.

7. DEVELOPMENTS IN AUTOGYROS
7.1 SPEED
A slowed rotor allows the aircraft to fly at 450 kts without the rotor advancing tip
speed exceeding Mach .95 (there are some business jets where the whole aircraft flies
at mach .92+)

7.2 CRUISE EFFICIENCY

The slowed rotor (no variable speed transmission required) reduces the rotational drag
so dramatically that the rotor drag becomes only about 10% of the total aircraft drag
basically a function of the rotor wetted area. (Rotor drag is a function of rpm cubed
e.g. dropping the rotor rpm from 300 to 100 reduces the rotational drag by a factor of
27.)

7.3 VERTICAL TAKEOFF AND LANDING

Both jump takeoff and hovering versions have the ability to operate without runways
at low cost, which will revolutionize regional civilian air transportation.

7.4 SMALL SIMPLE HIGH AR WING

Since the rotor provides the lift for hover and slow speed flight, the wing can be sized
for cruise flight about the size of general aviation aircraft and consequently about
the profile drag and without the need for high lift devices.

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

10
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

7.5 IMPOSSIBLE BLADE STALL

Since the wing provides the lift at cruise, the rotor does not need to provide any lift
and therefore there are no retreating blade stall issues as with conventional helicopters
at high speed. The rotor plane of rotation and blade angle of attack is nearly aligned
with the airstream at cruise speeds too low of angles of attack for retreating blade
stall to occur. This also aligns the rotor hub fairing with the airstream forvery low
drag.

7.6 NO CRUISE ROTOR NOISE

The slowed rotor also reduces the noise so significantly that during a flyover at ~600
(200 m) above the ground, you cannot hear the rotor noise over the engine noise it is
as quiet as a fixed wing aircraft.

7.7 HOVER AND LOW SPEED EFFICIENCY

With the dramatic reduction in slowed rotor drag, SR/C aircraft can operate with a
low disk loaded rotor, so the hover and or jump takeoff efficiencies are high.

7.8 FIXED WING SMOOTHNESS

With a tall tilting mast supported with flexible supports, the rotor loads are essentially
isolated from the fuselage, even for 2-bladed rotors. The tall mast also handles large
CG variations, optimizes wing AOA for best CL over a wide low/medium speed
range, and controls rotor rpm from medium forward speed to cruise.

7.9 UNPARALLELED SAFETY

Since the rotor is always in autorotation and has extreme tip weights for stability at
high aircraft speed and low rotor rpm flight, it acts as a built-in parachute, but better
because it can operate at any airspeed or altitude to provide a very soft zero roll
landing for unparalleled safety a total engine failure is not necessarily a life
threatening event, but could be more of an inconvenience.

7.10 LANDING GEAR SAFETY

Carter has developed a smart mechanical landing gear that can determine the impact
velocity in the first inch of deflection and then apply a constant pressure/de

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

11
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

acceleration over a large stroke to provide safe 24 36 ft/sec impact landings. The
gear can be light weight since the loads are nearly constant, spread over the entire
stroke.

8. ORIENTABLE AUTOGIRO ROTORS

a) Towering takeoff

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

12
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

b) Jump takeoff
Fig. 8.1 towering and jump takeoff capability gave the autogiro a
capability rivaling a helicopter.

Landing tests with the autogiro were conducted at the NACA in 1934 by Peck53 and
helped quantify the poor roll control response autogiros at very low airspeed. This
was a direct result of the use of conventional airplane control surfaces (ailerons).
Because the autogiro could be landed at almost zero airspeed, the ineffectiveness of
the ailerons under these conditions was a serious deficiency in the machines handling
qualities. The problem resulted in numerous mishaps, where inexperienced pilots
would land the machine on one wheel only, and a wing tip or blade tip would strike
the ground. Although de la Cierva had initially investigated a disk tilting mechanism
on the C-4 to provide roll, the control forces were found to be too heavy for the pilot.
By 1931 de la Cierva had introduced the directly orientable rotor control. This
rocking-head design solved the control problem by tilting the entire rotor shaft in
any direction and so inclining the rotor lift force. This innovation allowed him to
finally dispense with the stub wings and the elevator.
In 1934 Raoul Hafner introduced the spider blade-pitch control system to autogiros.
Hafner was a competitor with de la Cierva, and the Hafner Gyroplane Company built
and flew their first machine, the A.R. III, in September 1935. The novel spider
mechanism provided a means of increasing collective pitch on the rotor blades and
also using cyclic pitch to simultaneously tilt the rotor disk. This was done without
tilting the rotor shaft with a control stick, as was used in de la Ciervas direct control
system. Hafners mechanism was a significant advance on de la Ciervas system, and
in addition to enabling jump or towering take-offs it offered the pilot light and
responsive flight controls. With this feature the autogiro was to closely rival future
helicopters in handling and performance capability.

8.1 JUMP TAKEOFF

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

13
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

Because the rotor of the autogiro is unpowered in flight, the rotor needs to be brought
up to speed by some means before takeoff. On the earliest machines this was done by
taxiing the aircraft around on the ground, but this was not very effective. Later, a
spinning-top method was used, where a rope was wound around pegs mounted on
the bottom of the blades, the other end of the rope being fixed to the ground. As the
machine moved away and picked up speed, the rotor speed was increased.
Alternatively, the rope could be pulled manually to start the rotor. Although de la
Cierva had previously patented a mechanical starter for his Autogiros, he had resisted
its use because it was too heavy. In 1929 the Cierva Model C-12 used a biplane tail,
which could deflect the propeller slipstream to help spin the rotor.Eventually, Pitcairn
engineers developed a lightweight mechanical prerotator, and from 1930 onward
nearly all autogiros were equipped with one.
In later developments of the autogiro, a variable pitch system was used such that the
blades could be set to flat pitch when the autogiro was on the ground and increased to
a fixed pitch for normal flight. To perform a jump takeoff with this system, the pilot
first oversped the rotor, then rapidly applied collective pitch while declutching the
rotor to avoid any torque reaction.

9. LIFT-TO-DRAG RATIO IN AUTOROTATION FOR

COMPLETE AUTOGIRO VS THE ROTOR ALONE
AND ALSO WITH HELICOPTERS

Fig.9.1 lift-to-drag ratio for complete autogiro vs the rotor alone.

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

14
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

Fig. 9.2 lift-to-drag ratio of a rotor a modern helicopter

rotor.

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

15
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

The first published NACA report on the autogiro was authored by Wheatley, which
provided the first authoritative baseline measurement on the performance of the PCA
2 autogiro. Measurements of rates of descents and glide angles were obtained along
with estimates of rotor lift-to-drag ratio. Separate tests of the rotor were also
conducted in the wind tunnel, allowing quantification of the rotor performance alone
compared to the complete PCA-2 aircraft. As shown in the aerodynamic efficiency of
the autogirowas relatively poor compared to an airplane, with a maximum lift-to-drag
ratio (L/D) of only about 4.5. The differences between the rotor alone and the
complete aircraft reflect the high parasitic drag of the airframe. However, to put
results in perspective the rotoralone performance, which had a maximum L/D of
about seven, is comparable to that of a modern helicopter rotor (see Fig.). For higher
advance ratios (or tip-speed ratio) the helicopter rotor L/D drops off markedly because
of retreating blade stall and advancing blade compressibility effects, whereas the
autogiro rotor retains a L/D of five at =0.7.

10. ROTOR HUMP SPEED

The early sport gyroplane pilots followed a self-training procedure whereby the pilot
learned to fly the gyroplane as an unpowered glider in towed flight behind an
automobile, or sometimes on floats behind a motorboat.
These sport gyroplanes had rotors that had to be hand started from rest before
commencing the take-off run. The procedure would typically be as follows, assuming
no wind: With the gyroplane sitting at the end of the runway behind the tow car, the
pilot would reach up and gradually start turning the rotor by hand. He would continue
this procedure until he reached the maximum rpm he could physically achieve,
typically on the order of 100 rpm. At that point, he would tilt the rotor shaft back to
around 9o and the automobile would quickly accelerate to 15 to 18 mph and hold this
speed. If this were done properly, the air passing through the rotor would gradually
accelerate it to approx 200-250 rpm, then the rotor shaft could be tilted back to its full
18o and the car could gradually accelerate to something on the order of 30-40 mph.
The procedure was a little different if wind existed. Takeoff would typically occur at
approximately 30 mph and 300 rotor rpm (variations on all these numbers could exist,
of course).

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

16
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

If the car accelerated too quickly (too high an advance ratio) or the shaft was tilted too
far back early in the procedure, the rotor rpm would decrease, accompanied by blade
flapping to the stops, the so called mast bumping phenomenon, which could
damage the rotor or the rotor head assembly. Many early pilots had trouble doing the
correct procedure properly. Typically the first take-off ground run in this case was on
the order of 1000 ft, but subsequent takeoffs could be done with a short ground roll on
the order of a hundred feet if automobile speed and rotor shaft angle were handled
properly. Accomplishing this procedure in a float mounted extremely difficult if there
was much wave action. In that case, it was very difficult to avoid some mast bumping.
The term hump speed then came to be applied to the minimum rpm that had to be
achieved by hand to make a successful takeoff.

Fig. 10.1 sport gyroplane (gyroglider) in towed flight behind automobile

In more recent years, sport gyroplanes have been designed with a small (typically one
hp) motor mounted at the top of the rotor mast to spin the rotor up to approximately
200 rpm prior to starting the takeoff roll. With this addition, the take-off roll could be
reduced to 100 feet. Alternatively, flexible shaft drives have been used for a power
takeoff from the main engine to pre-rotate the rotor for takeoff.

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

17
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

11. CONCLUSION
Autogiros were the first successful rotary wing aircraft and first heavier than air
aircraft to fly successfully other than conventional airplane. Although they are not the
main stay in modern aviation but it is unquestionable that the step by step and
systematic way in which the designers and engineers approached and solved the
problems led to development of both theoretical and technical knowledge in field of
rotary wing flight that proved critical to development of Helicopters.
Its principles being combined with current (and future) technology and innovative
forward thinking toward ambitious new designs. This work also continues largely
with private funds. However, this fabled ugly duckling might be getting a new lease
on life, and the modern autogiro and gyroplane can have very important future roles
to play in large military and commercial applications. If the innovations of the
autogiro can be successfully combined with the capabilities of helicopters and also the
speed and range attributes of fixed-wing aircraft, then modern gyroplanes could be
used to meet an almost limitless variety of military missions and civil applications.
Only time will tell, but the renewed interest in the unique capabilities of the gyroplane
can clearly benefit from both the technical knowledge and the powerful mathematical
models and analytic design tools that have evolved over the last 50 years of helicopter
development.

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

18
 Savitribai Phule Pune University

REFERENCES
1. Stewart Houston On the modelling of gyroplane flight dynamics, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, 6 November 2016, Pages 4358
2. J. Gordon Leishman Development of the Autogiro: A Technical Perspective,
Journal of aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 4, JulyAugust 2004, Pages 765-780
3. Anand Saxena GYROPLANE - A Technical Essay on the Gyroplane ,
Researchgate, 25 February 2015
4. C. A. Lopez- Dynamics and Stability of an Auto rotating Rotor/Wing Unmanned
Aircraft, Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, vol. 27, no. 2, MarchApril
2004, Pages 258-269

Late G.N. Sapkal College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

19